Following President Bush’s address to the UN this past Tuesday, there was no doubt that I was going to jump on the opinionist’s bandwagon and spout some of my own thoughts regarding the UN and its role in post-war Iraq. However, after watching C-Span coverage of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives’ hearings, rather the Democrats’ verbal assault on Gen. Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Abizaid, Commander Central Command in Iraq, and Paul Bremer, Civilian Administrator in Iraq, regarding the $87 billion supplemental to fund the continued rebuilding of Iraq, it occurred to me that there were just too many issues that needed to be addressed immediately. Therefore, rather than one big dose of reality, I will distribute smaller ones. In contrast to soapbox rants, I like to call these smaller doses of reality soap “dish” rants. Soap dish rants are, by definition, shorter versions of soapbox rants. Clever, huh? Don’t be misled, however. Soap dish rants are just as effective…maybe even more so. Think of it this way. I can drop a bunch of smaller bombs all over the place as opposed to dropping one MOAB. Man, I love blowing stuff up.
On the Democrat’s Iraqi Assessment: While the subject of Iraq could be the focus of countless rants and raves, I would like to pass along some reality to the Democrats. Using an $87 billion supplemental as justification to attack the man in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi government and infrastructure, Paul Bremer, and General Abizaid, the Commander of the US troops in Iraq who succeeded in completing one of the most impressive military operations in history and who face life and death situations every day in defending the freedom of a newly liberated people is flat out wrong. I will concede that it is your political responsibility, as Democrats, to discredit your Republican counterparts. However, what is being accomplished by Sen. Leahy (D-Vermont), Sen. Feinstein (D-California), Sen. Hollings (D-South Carolina) et.al. is the promotion of the idea that nothing is being accomplished in Iraq. This idea is a barrage of bullets shooting down the morale of the men and women in uniform now serving in Iraq. The spirit of the US Fighting Man has been the difference in every theatre of operations from the Revolutionary War to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Victory is a byproduct of this spirit. Let me enlighten you, this spirit is fueled by the belief that their country is behind them. Does the phrase “united we stand, divided we fall” strike a nerve. We HAVE to win this war. Not just in Iraq, but against terrorism. Iraq is but one small battle in this theatre. REALITY CHECK – If you don’t put your DNC cards away and get your heads out of your jackasses, the last things you will have to worry about are winning the presidency in 2004, 2008, etc…, the growing deficit that you love to blame everything on, and whether or not Bill and Hillary will send you a Christmas card. What you will have to worry about is how to reserve your copy of the hard-to-get bestsellers, “How To Learn Arabic In 3 Easy Lessons” and “Getting Along With The Radical Islamic Terrorist Next Door For Dummies.”
On the UN: I have serious reservations about the legitimacy of an organization that sends men and women into a war zone to serve as peacekeepers armed only with a blue helmet emblazoned with the letters “UN”. I would contend the helmets serve not as means of protection but as targets. The letters do not stand for United Nations, they stand for “ shoot me, I’m UN-armed”. I guess they could run around and yell “Citizens’ Arrest…Citizens’ Arrest.” God Bless Barney Fife. On a more serious note, I realize that the UN has a role in world affairs. However, is has no place in determining the sovereignty of the United States. We are governed by the Constitution of the United States, not the United Nations Charter.
On the UN’s Role In Rebuilding Iraq: I will expand on my theory of the world’s role in rebuilding Iraq in subsequent opinions. In short, I contend that the offer to play a role in the reconstruction of Iraq should be extended to those countries, the coalition of the willing” who stood along side the United States from the beginning, some in spite of the threat of alienation and exclusion from regional organizations. By taking on rebuilding responsibilities, many of these countries (for example, those of the former Soviet Union) could build international credibility while allowing the United States to assume the predominant leadership role.
On NATO: 50 year-old alliances need to be reassessed. Russia is no longer a common enemy of the countries of the North Atlantic. As a matter of fact, I would have to say that enemies of the US can be found within the organization. I shouldn’t have to mention any names. As well, what happens when the EU establishes its heavily anticipated military element and it becomes involved in a regional conflict, one which the US has no involvement? Okay, I know it would be a stretch to think that a conflict could occur that the US would not be a part of but hang with me for a second. Where would the line be drawn between NATO involvement and EU involvement? Question for later…
And finally, The California Recall: A big stink was made over the fact that North Korea has missiles capable of reaching California. Is that such a bad thing?
Stay tuned. More to come…
Jeff Searcy 